Consumerism and The Decline of American Society and Values

11/25/2012
2:33 PM
 

When we think of America, many things come to mind. Baseball, Apple Pie, and maybe the automobile, very rarely do people think about our failing economic system, and how it goes against what this country was built on. Now when I say consumerism, I don’t mean the buying and the selling of goods. And I do not mean a free-market economy. When our country began, the idea of affordable (or free) healthcare, home ownership, and running a profitable business were not dreams, they were nearly certain to happen. They were all achievable because we relied on our community; nothing outside our bubbles (short of war) could hurt that. So where did we go wrong? Was it the politicians? Was it the war? Or was it simply America progressing into a world super power with the likes of England and Spain? (mind you this is the 18^th century). 

 

Now with every prospering country, we will see numerous things happen, the economy will grow, the population will rise, and there will almost always be a dramatic cultural shift (morals, language etc.). America is a great example for this. Even in the past century  (which for most cultures is a small chapter)  we’ve seen a great change in the way we talk, dress, and act. Of course that is a by-product of the changing times and modernization, but compare America in the early 1900s and the progress we’ve made versus an Eastern country like Japan which has phenomenal technology but has pretty much kept to the same customs and traditions they had thousands of years ago. I dedicate this to America’s love for stuff and status. Remember that George Carlin bit about “Stuff”, he hit the nail right on the head. Why do we need so much stuff, and when do those possessions transform from stuff to shit. I say, as soon as those who create the shit and possess the shit, start treating others like….well shit in order to get said shit. Make Sense? Read on.

Consumerism as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; also: a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods . Now there is no doubt that buying and selling things will produce an economy, that’s Capitalism. In America we take everything to excess, food, cars, and spending money. With every generation we see younger and younger children concerned with brand names, what does a 5-8 year old child care about the brand of his/her clothes? And let’s be honest, most of the shit these corporations are peddling will be used  by you for maybe a year, maybe less, and half of that shit, you don’t even need in the first place. This would all be well and fine if all of the excess spending were improving the average way of life here in America. The fact of the matter is, in the past 5 years, the DJIA is at an all-time high and the average American is struggling more and more. This is because people like you and I (assuming you are not a CEO or Hedge fund manager) are buying unnecessary goods at higher prices while the income we earn is not keeping steady with the cost of living. And though many statistics show that the housing affordability index is getting better, for example Southern California, and Maryland, homes are still sitting vacant while we have a rising amount of homeless. So if Consumerism as formerly mentioned earlier is the theory that the increasingly buying goods will increase the economy, who exactly is the economy increasing in favor of?

Think about how much money a company like Johnson and Johnson spends on creating different flavors and textures of shampoo and hand soap. I don’t know about you, but picking out toothpaste, shampoo and even socks is a stressful situation, when in reality its all the same shit. If companies put half of their R&D money into either charitable donations or government taxes, there is no doubt in my mind that our homelessness problem would be a thing of the past, world hunger would be a distant memory and the once guarantees of a good education, healthcare and home ownership would still stand. I will end you with this great scene from the movie Accepted where Lewis Black gives his thoughts on the illusion of college education and what it breeds.
 
 
Sean Rankin
Chief Blogger
The New Skeptic 

 

Hatemongers or Misunderstood: My Interview With the Westboro Baptist Church

Interview Conducted On: 9/4/2012, 4:01-5:02 PM

Article Written and Posted On: 9/5/2012, 9:14 PM

Let me first start off by saying, I do not support the Westboro Baptist Church or their views, but I support their right to say it. I conducted this interview with the sole purpose of hearing certain viewpoints straight from their mouths. Every person has a right to free speech. I was curious as to how they feel about the 1^st Amendment and their portrayal in the international media.

I want to start this with a little background on the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), their leader/pastor Fred Phelps Sr, and what they stand for. I want everybody to know, I read my questions and the answers I received, back to the member I was interviewing via phone (Abigail Phelps, Daughter of Fred Phelps Sr), and the following ANSWERS to the questions I asked were approved, however this article has not yet been reviewed by them, nor do I care if it ever is. I also want to add, that the questions I asked were a small portion of the 1 hour+ long conversation I had with Abigail, most of it included a bible lesson, hate preaching and even at one point her starting to cry, due to her passion on the question about their portrayal in the international media. Though they promote views that I disagree with extremely, they seemed very polite (I had to make multiple calls until I got a call from a blocked number from Abigail), but she seemed to get offended by some of my questions and interpretations.

Fred Phelps Sr born in Nov of 1929, is the leader and pastor at the Westboro Baptist Church located in Topeka, Kansas. He, along with his “church” are self-proclaimed “primitive Baptists” or “Old School Baptists”. They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and by literal, I mean their perspective on the book, but according to them they use “Calvinist principles”. The WBC is notorious for their public protests and picketing of Military Funerals, churches and organizations supporting equal rights for homosexuals, Jewish institutions, Schools (they came to my old high school, we had a large Jewish population), and even memorial services for events such as the 2011 Tucson shooting and the 2012 Aurora shooting. They gained national spotlight when in 1998, they protested the funeral of Matthew Shepard , a University of Wyoming student who was tortured and beaten to death due to his homosexuality. Since then they have showed up to the formerly mentioned events and more, with signs like “God Hates Fags”, “Thank God for 9/11”, “America is Doomed”, “Thank God for Katrina” and many more along the lines of that. They are listed as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I also find it crucial to note that they are not affiliated and are denounced by the two major Baptist organizations, Baptist World Alliance and Southern Baptist Convention. 

The following questions were just 6 pre-screened questions, and the answers were read back and approved by Abigail Phelps (the interviewee). The rest of the hour long conversation was very strange and hate filled, I am almost certain I will include more in a future article. These questions were centered around their views and stances, not their religious beliefs. Though she quoted the bible many times, I will only include the chapters she found crucial to her answers, and even then it will be up to you to look them up for clarity.

Me: Does the WBC or Pastor Fred Phelps believe in First Amendment abuse? If so, do they/he believe they have committed abuse of the 1^st amendment?

Abigail: No it is not possible to abuse. 11 of his [Fred Phelps] children have J.D. degrees. You will not find people like the WBC who fight for the 1^st, but also the gospel. They are only the true warriors left. The WBC does NOT take collections (she wanted to make that clear)

Me: When you say the word “fags” do you mean homosexuals? If yes, then why the protest of military funerals?

Abigail: Every adult has a responsibility to know what words mean. Fag is short for faggot, which means men who commit sodomy. They burn in their lust like faggots used to light fire (faggot also means, a bundle of sticks or twigs, esp when bound together and used as fuel.) It includes their enablers also. They do not do their duty to their neighbor who is committing that sin. Those liars who say its okay to be gay, and say its okay to commit sodomy, sloth and adultery, are as much or more to blame as fags. Quoted: Rev. 22:15.

Me: Are the people outside your church fags?

Abigail: You’re either a vessel of righteousness or a vessel of wrath. She went on to quote “Matthew 25” from the Bible. I believe she used the King James Version.

Me: Do you see any presidential candidates viable for the prosperity of our nation? If yes, than who and why?

Abigail: No and No. These are the last days, we have a duty to look at the signs of the times. There is not one candidate that sees that. The nation deserves them, they will lead this nation to its ultimate destruction. He [Obama] believes in Islam. Obama is the anti-Christ. He is only interested in declaring war on god. He is demon possessed. The same with Mitt Romney (except she went on to insult Mormonism instead of Islam)

Me: Why do you feel your church is often misrepresented in the media?

Abigail: The reason we are misrepresented in the media is because Satan is the prince of the power of the air, he is trying to keep the last little lamb (the people)  from being called. Ephesians 2:2

Me: Is there a chance a member of the church will run for public office to represent the interest of the American people on behalf of the WBC?

Abigail: No. You will never see a member of the WBC run for public office (she implied it was because that would be useless, because these are “the end times”).

Again, I have to make it clear, I DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR VIEWS, I VIEW THEM WITH DISDAIN. However, it is my purpose and duty as a journalist to make sure that the truth is sought, and with such a negative portrayal from "the big media", I found it necessary to seek the answers from the source. I may not agree with them, but I agree with their right to say it. The New Skeptic does not condone the activities performed by the WBC, and encourages counter-protests (their picketing schedule can be found on their website linked earlier). If you find yourself confronted by the WBC, keep calm, don't react with violence (they have a family of lawyers), and most of all, make sure that any potential victims of their hate speech are protected and shielded (even the KKK and Hells Angels have blocked their protests with American flags, shielding victims and their families from said hate speech). 

Sean Rankin

Chief Blogger

The New Skeptic 

"I'm saying you have to think for yourselves, you have to challenge authority"--Nick Naylor from Thank You For Smoking [VIDEO CLIP]

I absolutely love this movie. I got a copy when it first came out, my mother was hesitant because it was about smoking, but she knew at that age I wouldn't have ever smoked (I do now). My mother and my aunty who raised me say that Nick Naylor reminds them of me. I take that as a huge compliment.

The point of this is to stress the importance to challenge authority. If you just listen and obey, you have thrown away free will. Instead, get out there, talk to people, read/watch the news, get active and form your own opinions and values. That is what this blog is all about. Being skeptical, and not in a conspiracy theorist type of way. But rather questioning what you are told, thinking it through and forming your opinion, after much self deliberation.

This is why I say anybody that votes for 1 party on every issue is ignorant. I call myself a "leftist or liberal" but on issues like gun control and military intervention I am conservative (in the US sense). I study the issues, and form an opinion and take that stance.

Bottom line is...BE SKEPTICAL AND THINK FOR YOURSELVES!!ENJOY YOUR FREE-WILL!!

Campaign Focus Turns To 'Medicare'

8/18/2012
12:32 PM

For the past few days, media attention regarding the United States presidential election has turned from the economy and jobs, to Medicare, the government funded health care system for retirees. With both candidates attacking the records of their opponent, and me viewing Medicare as a serious issue, I was curious as to who will protect the program.

We can make the assumption that since Obama is a democrat and Romney is a republican, that Obama would be the obvious choice. Democrats have a long history of increasing funding of most social programs, and Republicans have long attacked programs such as Social Security, Government Health care and Social Welfare. But with an ever changing political landscape, and Romney's recent decision picking Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate, I think we better look at statements, voting records and stances on the issue.

The main reason I don't want to assume President Obama is the favorite among retirees regarding Medicare, is because of the "Affordable Health care Act" aka "Obamacare". I wasn't too sure on how this would affect the Medicare system, so I searched every corner of the Internet and I found out some pretty interesting stuff that voters on both sides should know. Under the "Affordable Health care Act" Medicare will sustain about 700 billion in cuts. Though it seems that those cuts are being re-invested in the health care system. The President has recently been attacking the Romney ticket over Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed Medicare overhaul. "Mr. Romney and his running mate might have a different plan" Obama said. "They want to turn Medicare into a voucher program. That means seniors would not have the guarantee of Medicare". Obama went on to say that Romney's plan for the program would force seniors to pay as much as $6,400 for health care costs per year. Now if Obama is making 700 billion dollars in Medicare cuts, where is he making said cuts? Most of them seem to be concentrated in two areas. First he proposes cutting "Medicare Advantage", which according to its own website "A Medicare Advantage program (like a HMO or PPO) is another Medicare health plan you may have as part of Medicare." This might not be a problem except roughly 11.5 million or 25% of Medicare beneficiaries participate in the program. Allies of Obama's Medicare plan say that Medicare Advantage is too costly, as the government is subsidizing private insurers, and that Obamacare is simply cutting payments. The problem with this is, if you look at the Medicare Advantage website (linked earlier), the reason the program costs more is because beneficiaries receive more benefits. If the government makes cuts to this, providers will have no choice but to cut benefits. You can see how 11.5 million people would be against that, and in a swing state, that is a whole lotta votes!

The next set of cuts under Obama's Medicare reform is geared toward health care providers, such as hospitals and nursing agencies. This is where the allies of his Medicare policy get a tad circular in their reasoning. They say that recipients won't have their benefits cut because under Obamacare, nearly 30 million Americans will be newly insured, and the providers will make up the difference in profit there. But this is a fallacy, and an obvious one at that. If providers are going to be making their profit off of the newly insured under Obamacare instead of Medicare, wouldn't they just focus their services to those insured under Obamacare, Hell I wouldn't doubt that most of the providers would withdraw from Medicare completely. Essentially Medicare beneficiaries have the same benefits on paper but not in practice. According to the 2012 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services trustees report, it is predicted by Richard Foster, the chief actuary for CMS "Without unprecedented changes in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs providing these services. By the end of the long range projection period, Medicare prices for hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgical center, diagnostic laboratory, and many other services would be less than half of their level under the prior law. Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicare prices, which have already led to access problems for Medicaid enrollees and far below the levels paid by private health insurance. Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result." The main problem Obama runs into with this is where the cuts go, and the financing of the program (Medicare). Well we already have established that the cuts will go to help fund Obamacare, but he claims that it will also help extend the life of Medicare. Again that is a tad circular. You cannot simultaneously cut Medicare to fund Obamacare while still helping Medicare without running a deficit equal to those cuts (700 billion). As the Congressional Budget Office has put it, " To describe the full amount of (Medicare Health Insurance) trust fund savings as both improving the governments ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the governments fiscal position." Basically he cannot cut Medicare to fund Obamacare while also improving Medicare without running a deficit, which is the exact opposite of what anybody wants right now. It seems like something they should hammer out soon, especially if he wants to grab swing-states with a large retiree population such as my state of Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa.

But what about Romney and Ryan? After all Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget plan, extends those same cuts to Medicare. In a nutshell what I get from reading the Romney tickets statements, and Rep. Ryan's budget proposals, is that they want to turn Medicare into a voucher system, and I don't see that working well. Basically the government will give beneficiaries money (vouchers) that will cover only part of their health care costs. As the Kaiser Family Foundation put it, "These proposals would each convert Medicare from a defined benefit program, in which beneficiaries are guaranteed coverage for a fixed set of benefits. To a defined contribution or "premium support" program, in which beneficiaries are provided a fixed federal payment to help cover their health care expenses." To me that doesn't sound too good. I don't like the idea of a fixed federal payment in a health care system that is bonkers with inflation.

I think Obama is the winner here. I think that Obama can iron out the details on his Medicare policy. Whereas Paul Ryan has already laid it out twice in Congressional budget proposals. I don't think many Americans would mind running a deficit (if they can lower the 700 bil. number), so long as the program actually works. If I was Obama, I would make the cuts to Medicare Advantage, but not to the providers. You'll get slightly lower than the 700 billion number. We would still run a deficit on this, but seniors would still get their guaranteed coverage from Medicare, and providers would enjoy unchanged funding, an influx of new patients under Obamacare and returning patients under Medicare. I never even addressed that Ryan's budget proposal hurt 44 million Americans insured under Medicaid (Medicare for children and the seriously ill). Either way, this is exactly why I wish for the days of socialized medicine similar to Canada, England and France. Then we wouldn't have to worry about retirees getting their medicine and what is getting cut from where, because it is one large, functioning, national program that insures everybody. But we will leave the socialized medicine debate for another time.


Sean Rankin
Chief Blogger
The New Skeptic

'WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Granted Asylum in Ecuador

8/17/2012
1:42 AM

On Thursday, Julian Assange was granted "diplomatic asylum" from Ecuador. Assange faces charges on sexual assault allegations in Sweden, and is currently held up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If British police were to take custody of Assange, they would extradite him to Sweden, as they do not recognize "Diplomatic Asylum" as it is not "Political Asylum" which would entitle Assange to special privileges, instead his Diplomatic Asylum basically just protects him from extradition and arrest regarding the allegations in Sweden, and perhaps regarding WikiLeaks.

Julian Assange is the founder of whistle-blower website, one of my personal favorites, "WikiLeaks". WikiLeaks was responsible for releasing thousands of US Embassy cables (fancy word for email), Classified documents on everything from the Iraq War to diplomatic relations. WikiLeaks released thousands of other documents on other countries, almost every major country had some sort of diplomatic document released. He currently is not facing charges in England or Sweden regarding WikiLeaks, though it is implied that the United States would attempt to extradite him and arrest him, possibly giving him a life sentence.

As I mentioned before, currently he is held up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. It is basically an apartment with 5 or 6 rooms located in a bigger building which also houses Colombia's Embassy (I just read this, I've never been there). One of the supporters who met with Assange at the embassy said "It's not the Hilton", however he does have a bed, access to a phone and the Internet. Now, since he is in a foreign embassy, which is considered sovereign land, he is protected from British police as long as he stays within the boundaries of the embassy. However, due to a little known 1987 law that would allow the U.K to come into an embassy and arrest whomever they're after, this was probably in response to the 1980 Iranian Embassy hostage situation where British special forces, with permission from Iran, entered the embassy and freed the hostages. Obviously a much different scenario than the one Mr. Assange is in. British authorities insist that they will not take this option. I do not see the British government doing this, as it would be considered a hostile act, and the whole world would look down on it as a power play.

So in order to get to Ecuador so he can enjoy his "Diplomatic Asylum", he would have to exit the boundaries of the embassy to get to an airport or helipad, which would put him on British soil and give British authorities the right to arrest him, and they have stressed that they will not allow him safe passage out of the country. Basically if he steps a foot outside the embassy, British authorities will arrest and extradite him. Many have speculated about ways to sneak Assange out, such as in an over sized Diplomatic pouch or in the trunk of a Diplomatic Car (Diplomatic pouches and cars cannot be searched, as they are also sovereign property of the country bearing the pouch/car). I personally like the diplomatic pouch and car idea, it could work. Even if the   British authorities knew he was in it, they could not search it unless he was exposed and they had solid proof.

British authorities could also revoke the diplomatic status of Ecuador, allowing police to simply walk in and arrest Assange. This would likely sever ties between the two countries, I do not see this as a likely scenario either.

Both sides are basically at a stalemate of negotiations, ultimately that will lead nowhere. Unfortunately for Mr.Assange, I do not see this ending well, as I only see 2 scenarios and I think the second one will happen. The first scenario, is that the British government just lets him go, they have a sudden change of heart and let him exit the country safely. Seeing as though they have said that will not happen, and that if Sweden and the US found out, they would likely condemn the British government for allowing such an event. The second scenario is that this whole thing goes on for months and months, and eventually Assange gives himself up to authorities and tries to negotiate some plea bargain that would allow him to serve time in Australia, his native country. Unless he plead "not guilty" to the charges Sweden would bring up, in that case he could beat it, I doubt it because of the political pressure that the judge presiding over the case would be facing.

I think the whole "sexual allegation" thing is just a cover-up to get him charged regarding WikiLeaks, they did have a server in Sweden until 2010, you can find that info on their Wikipedia page. I personally think the women are either making this up or fabricating huge parts of it, hell part of me thinks that they are being paid or intimidated by the Swedish government. If America were to get a hold of him, he would not get a fair trial, pretty much anybody in power hates this man. He could face life in prison or even death for charges ranging from espionage to stealing classified documents and computer hacking.

Julian Assange is a great man. If anybody should be supporting him it is the people of the United States. Remember that amendment to the Constitution, ya know, the 1st one that states "Freedom of Speech and PRESS". Yet the United States government is spear-heading a diplomatic war against the man. Plus, Assange never hacked anything. WikiLeaks is simply a "broker" if you will of information. They receive it from a news source, or whistle-blower hacker, and then they publish it. I don't see any laws broken there. But I refuse to believe Sweden is purely after him for sexual allegations, they're making a world-wide spectacle of the whole ordeal, involving other countries. This is simply a power play against a small nation and a renegade, revolutionary, inspirational man by 3 nations who have way too much to hide when it comes to their diplomatic relations and evil doings.

I will be watching for updates on the story to see what happens. Though, like I said, I don't see anything significant happening for months, with Assange giving himself up with conditions in place. Unfortunately, I do not see a bright ending for Assange, and this saddens me deeply. I love WikiLeaks, I love the message they stand for. But this will only fuel the fire, Assange isn't the only whistle-blower with connections, more will step up and expose the corruption of the worlds most powerful countries.


Sean Rankin
Chief Blogger
The New Skeptic

Welcome to The New Skeptic

This post will introduce you to myself, and layout briefly my intentions with this blog.

I will be primarily using The New Skeptic, to bring you my opinions, and the facts on current events and social issues. You will notice, much of my criticism will be geared toward religion and conservatives, though everybody will get a little slice of that pie. Not every article will be opinionated, most will, some will just be news stories, some will be interviews with friends and strangers and some will be re-shared pictures/videos.

About me, if you have not read the little section they gave me to write about myself. My name is Sean Rankin, I am a 20 year old real estate broker in South Florida, though I aspire to be a journalist. My passion since I was a child was writing and debating, I figured I might as well get paid for it. My mother died when I was young, 15 to be exact, even though I was taking care of her a few years before that. My father was never around, nor do I care. Therefore my family is relatively small, my Aunty Gina raised me from age 13, and I have an older brother Donald who is 28, he has a wife and two kids also, but that is about it. I tend to keep to myself, I think a lot, sometimes just arguing with myself in my head, that is a huge reason I started this blog.

I chose the name "The New Skeptic" because I recently, in the past year, have become a very vocal atheist, activist and skeptic of all topics. I wanted to keep the title broad, and not bearing my name, as I hope to eventually have contributing writers. I hope that this will serve as a platform for my ideas and writings to further my dream of being a journalist. I believe we should always question authority, always be skeptical of what you are told because that is how truths come to be.

Thank You, and Here's to Future Endeavors,
Sean Rankin
Chief Blogger
The New Skeptic